[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <84144f020812130103t11fb4054rb934376a034ec802@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 2008 11:03:51 +0200
From: "Pekka Enberg" <penberg@...helsinki.fi>
To: "Christoph Lameter" <cl@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: "Nick Piggin" <npiggin@...e.de>,
"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Linux Memory Management List" <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
bcrl@...ck.org, list-linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: [rfc][patch] SLQB slab allocator
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 4:34 AM, Christoph Lameter
<cl@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> AFAICT this is the special case that matters in terms of the database
> test you are trying to improve. The case there is likely the result
> of bad cache unfriendly programming. You may actually improve the
> benchmark more if the cachelines would be kept hot there in the right
> way.
Lets not forget the order-0 page thing, which is nice from page
allocator fragmentation point of view. But I suppose SLUB can use them
as well if we get around fixing the page allocator fastpaths?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists